Comments on: The ACLU “evolves” on speech rights http://overlawyered.com/2014/01/aclu-evolves-speech-rights/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=aclu-evolves-speech-rights Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Wed, 30 Jul 2014 00:38:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.1 By: Hugo S. Cunningham http://overlawyered.com/2014/01/aclu-evolves-speech-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-259245 Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:30:32 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=43327#comment-259245 JH–
Ref. my Cyberussr website–
Look up the words “satire” and “irony” at Wiktionary.com,
and then take a closer look at the mix of commentary and original source materials at my Soviet website.

]]>
By: Jazzizhep http://overlawyered.com/2014/01/aclu-evolves-speech-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-259213 Thu, 09 Jan 2014 08:12:10 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=43327#comment-259213 Hugo,
I just read some pieces penned by Jacoby, and you either have great difficulty in comprehension or are intentionally misrepresenting his words. Perhaps you can point me to an article in which Jacoby advocates forcing people to listen. While you are at it, please post links of the “lawlessness, violence, and even murder” of Boston pro-life demonstrators. Keep in mind, being arrested for protesting does not count.

BTW, checked out your website, how’s your love of the USSR working out? Now there’s a country that knew how to protect rights of free speech.

]]>
By: Jazzizhep http://overlawyered.com/2014/01/aclu-evolves-speech-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-259210 Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:50:09 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=43327#comment-259210 Hugo,

In your scenario, who decides a particular viewpoint has been heard and when that viewpoint has been heard enough? Also , when should “camping out” by busybodies be excluded, and who decides whether one particular group meets your definition of busybody?

]]>
By: gitarcarver http://overlawyered.com/2014/01/aclu-evolves-speech-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-259173 Thu, 09 Jan 2014 05:43:20 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=43327#comment-259173 Hugo.

I read Jacoby’s column and I don’t see where he or anyone is advocating people be forced to listen.

If part of the purpose of the first amendment is the exchange of ideas, then moving voices so far away from people where they cannot be heard seems to be contrary to that idea.

It bothers me to some extent that this law targets pro-life protesters, but leaves in place the idea that PeTA picketing KFC’s are acceptable. Or perhaps you remember the targeting of business that supported the traditional definition of marriage.

If we are going to say “move down the street where you cannot be heard,” then we have to do that for all groups and not just groups whose speech is of a certain content.

Finally, you may or may not remember that back in 1993, Melbourne, Fl was “ground zero” for pro-life protests and pro-choice advocates. The battleground was a clinic just off of US1 on the north side of Melbourne. It also happens to be in my back yard.

To say the least, the encounters were brutal. I know because I was there. While I am pro-life, I am sympathetic to the idea that you are putting forth that yelling, screaming, threatening and demeaning those seeking an abortion is not the way to have people see the wisdom of your views. I am of the mind that if you don’t want to listen, walk away. If you want your message heard, convey it in a way that will be heard. Trust me when I say that I argued more with people on the pro-life side who were yelling at people than I did with pro-choice people.

In short, while I don’t agree that there is a “right to be heard,” I also don’t believe that the government should prevent an idea from being heard when it is expressed on public property and in the public arena, especially when that restriction is based not on the methods of communication, but the content of the message.

In effect, a CONTROL “cone of silence” in the public arena in my opinion contrary to the First Amendment and the rights of people.

]]>
By: Hugo S. Cunningham http://overlawyered.com/2014/01/aclu-evolves-speech-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-259161 Thu, 09 Jan 2014 03:46:34 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=43327#comment-259161 GC–

I had in mind “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It is certainly closer to the mark than a “right to listen” conjured up by right-wing “Boston Globe” columnist Jeff Jacoby on behalf of the anti-abortion protestors. Presumably Jacoby had in mind a “right to [force private individuals to] listen.”

]]>
By: gitarcarver http://overlawyered.com/2014/01/aclu-evolves-speech-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-259132 Wed, 08 Jan 2014 22:51:44 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=43327#comment-259132 Hugo,

Can you please show me in the text of the First Amendment the words “public square and political arena?”

I seem to be missing it.

]]>
By: Hugo S. Cunningham http://overlawyered.com/2014/01/aclu-evolves-speech-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-259127 Wed, 08 Jan 2014 21:25:36 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=43327#comment-259127 The ACLU has it right in these buffer zone cases.

The issue is not free speech– no one questions the right of anti-abortion people to preach to the public at large, or to peaceably assemble and petition the government for new abortion restrictions– but rather coerced listening: cornering private individuals on private business to hear (again and again) a message they have already heard and rejected, and meanwhile seizing the opportunity to physically block said private individuals from their lawful private business.

Uphold the anti-abortion people in this case, and then there is no legal way to prevent other fanatics from camping out (complete with bongo drums and loudspeakers) in front of private residences of people they don’t like (eg. anyone who has contributed to a libertarian cause), or from sending soundtrucks to badger target neighborhoods late at night.

Some anti-abortion fanatics point out laws tolerating picket lines by strikers, but those laws are statutes, not Constitutional rights. Congress has decided to give strikers some leeway against strikebreakers who are taking their jobs. There is no requirement to extend the same right to busybodies harassing strangers. And even strikers would face restrictions if they had the same record of lawlessness, violence, and even murder of the Boston-area anti-abortion demonstrators.

A USSC decision to uphold the Massachusetts buffer law would direct the energies of the anti-abortion people back where the First Amendment specified– in the public square and political arena.

I use the term “Weimar Republican” to describe that branch of the party which panders to religious-right extremists.

]]>